Bush suggests Obama wants 'appeasement' of terrorists (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/)
Posted: 08:48 AM ET
From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-white-house-correspondent-ed-henry/)

JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The remarks seemed to be a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to raise doubts about Obama with Jewish-Americans. Those doubts were already stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of the terror group Hamas.

Obama last week called the Hamas allegation a "smear" and the Democratic presidential frontrunner also quickly lashed out Thursday at Bush's speech in Israel in a prepared statement released to CNN by his campaign.

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," said Obama. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

GG BUSH... DIDN'T YOU TALK TO GADDAFI, AND KIM JONG IL?????

Obama's response

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

The White House's response

The White House said Bush's comment wasn't a reference to Obama.

"It is not," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel. "I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

John Kerry's response
How dare George Bush use the Knesset in Israel to make a political statement

How dare him when under his presidency...

Al Queda has grown stronger, Iraq is in Turmoil, the Middle east is more volatile then it was before he became president, Iran has grown stronger, Hezbollah has grown stronger, Hamas has grown stronger, and Israel is in more danger then before George Bush became president.

We are in more danger today then before George Bush became president.

Jedd's response

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Why did Gates say that we need to talk to Iran yesterday?

Why did Rice say we need to speak with Iran about Iraq more?

McCain agrees with Bush...

Bye bye GOP.

No presidency for you this election.

McCain agrees with Bush...

Bye bye GOP.

No presidency for you this election.


Actually, I will be surprised if even 40% of the GOP incumbents are re-elected. BUT, if the Democrats do not pull the plug on Reid and Pelosi and put in some folks that actually want to work toward getting something accomplished, it could all be reversed by the next election cycle. Folks have grown increasingly fickle.

I'd put money on McCain cutting every possible tie with Bush the day after he picks a running mate for the real campaign.

Joe Biden -- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden, D-Delaware, called President Bush’s comments accusing Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats of wanting to appease terrorists "bulls**t” and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians. “This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.
“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out not me. The NIE has pointed that out and what are you talking about, is he going to fire Condi Rice? Condi Rice has talked about the need to sit down. So his first two appeasers are Rice and Gates. I hope he comes home and does something.”
He quoted Gates saying Wednesday that we “need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them.”

oooh, mad burn by biden.

I'd put money on McCain cutting every possible tie with Bush the day after he picks a running mate for the real campaign.

/agreed, hell I even heard Bill O'reilly (tongue in cheek) mentioning maybe McCain should pick Hillary as his running mate.

Now that would be interesting...

/agreed, hell I even heard Bill O'reilly (tongue in cheek) mentioning maybe McCain should pick Hillary as his running mate.

Now that would be interesting...

I just gagged at the thought of John, Cindy and Hillary in a three-way. And no, I won't say how that thought came to mind. Just a regular perverted Thursday afternoon.

Most likely it would be John sitting in a chair on the side with his flacidity in his hand watching while Hilly manhandled his bitch.

i just shivered and threw up a bit in my mouth.

Posted this in another thread due to how it fit the thread for me, but this is actually for this thread...

6YN1qgb9Oe0

That was great. Good Job Chris Matthews in calling someone to task about simply trying to BS about history he obviously didn't know anything about.

The majority of those "moving mouths" hane no clue about the examples they use. The best part wasn't even asking the guy what Chamberlain did but when Matthews asked the guy why he was shouting LOL. that cracked me up.

These guys, including 9 out of 10 of the moving mouths on Fox noise are just complete idiots who do nothing more than read the scripts that the "party" feeds them as they sit and shout on television and radio.

Welcome to the modern world of fascism...brought to you by Americas Republican Party!

Obama just smacked McCain and Bush down live in a town hall meeting... Can't wait till you guys read the sound bites :)

Posted this in another thread due to how it fit the thread for me, but this is actually for this thread...

6YN1qgb9Oe0


hahaha what the fuck, he keeps on digging himself deeper into embarrassment, hilarious.

Obama: Bush and McCain 'have a lot to answer for' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/obama-bush-and-mccain-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/)
Posted: 12:35 PM ET

From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-associate-political-editor-rebecca-sinderbrand/)
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/16/art.obama.pool.jpg Obama tied McCain to Bush’s foreign policy in his Watertown speech.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) – Barack Obama struck back hard at President Bush and John McCain Friday, accusing them of hypocrisy and of distorting his position on dialogue with nations hostile to the United States, telling a South Dakota crowd that “I’m running for president to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course.”

“I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain, and with the people of South Dakota,” he said at a Watertown campaign stop. “If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I'm happy to have any time, any place and that is debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.”

In his comments before the Israeli Knesset Thursday, Bush seemed to equate the Illinois senator’s foreign policy views with those of Nazi appeasers in the years before World War II, though he did not mention any names. Obama strongly criticized the president for the remarks Friday, calling them “the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.”

On Friday, Obama also fired back at McCain for saying Thursday that the Democratic senator was not qualified to protect the nation. “[John McCain] talked about elevating the tone of debate in our country. He talked about reaching out in a bipartisan fashion to the other side. Then not an hour later he turned around and embraced George Bush's attack on Democrats,” said Obama, who called the Arizona senator’s Iran policy “naïve and irresponsible.”

“He jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said that I wasn't fit to protect this nation that I love because I wanted to sit down and negotiate with tough diplomacy with countries like Iran. Accused me of not being fit…[or] being able to protect this nation,” he added.

He said both Bush and McCain “have a lot to answer for” over the war in Iraq and the failure to find Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s continuing strength, among other continuing foreign policy problems.

“They are going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to America and Israel and the Middle East in a generation. That's the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/obama-bush-and-mccain-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/#comment-1092574

Bush calling out Obama for supposedly being like pre-WWII Nazi supporters is especially ridiculous since Prescott Bush provided great aid to the Nazi cause (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar).

I'd put money on McCain cutting every possible tie with Bush the day after he picks a running mate for the real campaign.

Yup, I suspect we will see a different side of McCain when he chooses a running mate....perhaps he will show a little of the Dem he has inside himself. Remember when he flirted with the idea of changing parties or being Kerry's running mate? This guy worries me, he doesn't even know which side he's on.

I just gagged at the thought of John, Cindy and Hillary in a three-way. And no, I won't say how that thought came to mind. Just a regular perverted Thursday afternoon.

What the hell...and where is Bill in this picture, b/c with a thought like this he must be some where with his cigar.... lol



Bush is a complete retard. I think he does and says things anymore jsut to see what he can get away with. I am no longer surprised by him but I am ashamed of him and ashamed he is our President. The next person in office has a long road to repair the damage he has caused. I do not envy them.

This guy worries me, he doesn't even know which side he's on.
I get the impression that he doesn't either.

“They are going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to America and Israel and the Middle East in a generation. That's the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country.



This goes to my rant in the other thread...the "wool over the eyes"

icooZ4PTM60

What?? Appeaser?

Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It

If the recent exchanges between President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain on Hamas and terrorism are a preview of the general election, we are in for an ugly six months. Despite his reputation in the media as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won't stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel.

President Bush picked up this theme yesterday. Without naming Obama during his speech last night to Israel's Knesset, Bush suggested that Democrats want to "negotiate with terrorists" while Republicans want to fight terrorists.

The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.

McCain, meanwhile, is guilty of hypocrisy. I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and believe that she was right to say, about McCain's statement on Hamas, "I don't think that anybody should take that seriously." Unfortunately, the Republicans know that some people will. That's why they say such things.

But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if not unique response for an American politician from either party. And it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive Republican nominee would reply today.

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American election.

Either he is a dirty liar/hypocrite.... or his OLD age is catching up with him.

Well, since it is a Friday night, and I have not beaten my dead horse for at least a few days, I have to raise the question to Herr Bush of how he is able to fling poo at Obama for wanting to talk with Iran's leaders, comparing him to Nazi appeasers, without explaining how he is able to reconcile his choice for Veep skirting American and UN sanctions to do business with the "terrorists" that were holding our citizens hostage.

The only thing I am currently regretting is that I may not live long enough to see Cheney get the "truth-stick" shoved up his ass. The republican leadership realized how completely overboard they had gone in chasing Clinton's "closeted skeletons", and rewrote the rules to make sure none of their folks would have to endure similar embarrassment, as soon as they won the White House.

Gotta love Keith Olbermann

qr8nrRZOpXw

hrDnpYDQauw

Doesn't have much to do with the topic of the thread, except the GG Bush part. :(

Remember when he flirted with the idea of changing parties or being Kerry's running mate? This guy worries me, he doesn't even know which side he's on.


Man...I am so tired of sides..if you are republicain or democrat....I just want issues covered. The more we pick sides the more we find things to seperate us. ISSUES...I want issues not parties. bleh

When someone asks me now what party I am...I say I dont belong to one anymore..LOL